Real judgements, distilled
Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1094
An older qualification must still satisfy the eligibility rules governing the appointment sought. Here, the certificate's early date did not secure reinstatement, and rejection of eligibility should not be confused with a conclusive finding that the certificate was forged.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1095
A party benefiting from a conditional stay must meet its deposit requirement or face enforcement. The additional ₹15 crore deposit secures the pending dispute; it does not settle the land's final compensation or amount to an immediate payment to the landowners.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1093
An alleged attempt to kill does not become a lesser offence simply because the victim avoided a fatal injury. Restoring this charge means the accusation must be tried; it does not establish that the accused is guilty.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1090
For the assessment in this case, assistance reducing ordinary manufacturing costs was taxable even though the government wanted to encourage industry. The purpose and actual operation of the particular subsidy mattered more than its general development label.
Criminal Appeal · 2026 INSC 1091
Proof that someone caused a serious injury does not by itself prove the additional ingredients of robbery. A court can substitute a lesser offence supported by the evidence; the sentencing reduction here depended on Appa's particular circumstances.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2026 INSC 1092
Someone challenging an election must ensure that the personal-presentation requirement is met and can be proved. Merely entering the court building does not establish compliance, and a filing defect can end the challenge before the election allegations are examined.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1088
An employee who retires on 30 June may be entitled to the increment that falls due on 1 July after completing a year of service. Authorities that delay paying the amounts due must pay interest after the deadline set by the court.
Civil Appeal · 2026 INSC 1089
Recruitment must follow the qualifications stated in the advertisement and the governing Recruitment Rules. A court will not override a merit-based eligibility decision made under those rules merely because the candidate concerned was higher in the written test.
Writ Petition (Criminal) · 2026:DHC:8797
A person who occupied property only because of employment has no independent right to remain once the employment and decree end. Even when a petition fails, courts can make practical arrangements to let a person recover personal belongings.
14543 more judgements for members
You're seeing the newest cases. Log in — it's free — to keep scrolling, search by name or judge, and filter by court or legal area.
Log in to see moreThe appellant's husband died of multiple chop wounds at their rented home in Assam in 2013, and she was convicted of his murder based on circumstantial evidence, mainly the "last seen" theory and her allegedly unnatural conduct of not crying. She had given a detailed written explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the stage where an accused can personally explain the case against them), stating that her landlord's family had assaulted her husband while drinking and that she was falsely implicated, but both the trial court and the High Court convicted her without ever discussing or addressing this defence in their judgments.
The Supreme Court held that a Section 313 statement is not a mere formality but confers a valuable, constitutionally-grounded right on the accused under Article 21 to explain incriminating circumstances, and courts are duty-bound to actually consider such a defence and accept or reject it with reasons, not ignore it. Here, neither lower court had engaged with the appellant's explanation at all, despite it not being implausible given other suspicious facts, such as an unexplained delay in informing police and a post-mortem finding (an empty stomach) inconsistent with the prosecution's timeline. An accused does not need to prove such a defence beyond reasonable doubt, only to raise a reasonable probability of truth. Finding the chain of circumstantial evidence incomplete and the courts' total failure to consider her defence prejudicial, the Supreme Court acquitted the appellant and ordered her immediate release.
Courts must meaningfully consider an accused's own explanation given under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; ignoring it entirely can by itself make a conviction legally unsustainable, and in a circumstantial-evidence case the accused only needs to show their version is reasonably probable, not prove it conclusively.
